The highly anticipated trial of South Sudan’s suspended First Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar Teny, entered a decisive stage this week as a Special Court in Juba prepared to rule on an objection raised by Machar’s defence team.
At the heart of the matter is whether the court itself has the authority under the constitution and the 2018 peace agreement to try Dr. Riek Machar and seven of his close allies.
The outcome of this jurisdictional dispute could shape not only the trial but also South Sudan’s broader political and legal trajectory at a time of fragile peace and looming national elections.
The Jurisdictional Objection
Machar’s defence lawyers submitted a strong challenge, insisting that the Special Court was improperly established and that the trial violates South Sudan’s constitution.
According to them, the charges Machar faces are rooted in alleged violations of the ceasefire provisions of the 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS).
As such, they argue, accountability mechanisms provided for under the peace deal including the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements Monitoring and Verification Mechanism (CTSAMVM) and, ultimately, the planned Hybrid Court for South Sudan should handle such disputes, not a domestic special tribunal.
“The Special Court is unconstitutional,” one defence lawyer said in court, arguing that “issues related to ceasefire breaches are political and should be addressed under the peace agreement, not as treason or criminal charges.”
In effect, Machar’s camp maintains that the trial undermines the very peace framework that ended years of civil war.
The Prosecution’s Rebuttal
The prosecution rejected the defence’s claims, describing them as unfounded and a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings.
Lead prosecutors presented a 14-page written response, supported by several appendices, arguing that the Special Court was lawfully constituted under South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution of 2011 (as amended).
They further stressed that sovereign nations have the inherent right to establish judicial mechanisms to handle crimes committed on their territory, regardless of what international or hybrid arrangements might exist.
“This case is about sovereignty and justice for South Sudanese citizens,” one prosecutor told the court. “The accused face serious charges treason, conspiracy to rebel, and crimes against humanity. These are not mere political questions. They are crimes that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of our courts.”
The prosecution also highlighted that the Hybrid Court envisioned in the peace agreement has not yet been set up, making it impractical to refer the case there.
Background: The Nasir Incident
The case against Machar stems from a violent confrontation in Nasir, Upper Nile State, earlier in 2025.
According to government reports, forces loyal to Machar engaged in heavy fighting with government troops, leaving over 250 soldiers dead.
The violence, which erupted despite ongoing ceasefire monitoring, was widely condemned as one of the gravest breaches of the peace deal since its signing.
The incident led to Machar’s suspension as First Vice President and his subsequent arrest alongside seven senior members of the SPLM-IO. The charges brought against them are severe:
Treason
Conspiracy to rebel
Murder
Crimes against humanity
If convicted, the penalties could range from long prison terms to the death penalty, though human rights groups have called for restraint and respect for due process.
A Trial with Political Overtones
The trial is being closely watched not just as a legal proceeding, but also as a deeply political event.
Dr. Machar has long been one of South Sudan’s most prominent and controversial figures, having alternated between partnership and rivalry with President Salva Kiir since the country’s independence in 2011.
Many analysts see the case as a test of whether South Sudan can uphold the rule of law in high-profile cases, or whether justice will be overshadowed by political calculations.
For Dr. Riek Machar’s supporters, the trial is perceived as an attempt to sideline him from the political arena ahead of the long-awaited national elections scheduled for December 2025.
For Kiir’s allies, however, the trial is framed as a necessary step toward accountability and deterrence, especially in light of the devastating human toll of repeated ceasefire violations.
Reactions from Different Quarters
Civil Society and Human Rights Groups
Civil society organizations have expressed concern that the trial could deepen political divisions if handled without transparency.
They argue that South Sudan must balance accountability with reconciliation.
“While no one is above the law, the process must be credible and fair,” said one Juba based activist. “If the court is seen as biased or unconstitutional, the ruling could reignite tensions.”
International Community
International partners, including the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Union, are monitoring the proceedings closely. Both bodies played critical roles in brokering the 2018 peace deal.
Diplomats have urged restraint and called on South Sudan’s leaders to prioritize peace. “The handling of this trial will reflect on South Sudan’s commitment to the rule of law and stability,” a Western diplomat told reporters in Juba.
SPLM-IO Supporters
Within Dr. Riek Machar’s political movement, there is strong resentment. Many SPLM-IO supporters argue that the case is a violation of the peace agreement and an attempt to criminalize political opposition.
“Machar is not a criminal; he is a partner in peace,” one supporter said outside the courtroom. “This case risks undoing the fragile unity that has kept South Sudan together in recent years.”
Broader Implications
The ruling on the jurisdictional objection will have far-reaching implications.
If the court upholds its jurisdiction, the trial will proceed to substantive hearings, where evidence will be presented on Machar’s alleged role in the Nasir incident.
This could drag on for months and dominate national politics ahead of the elections.
If the court rules in favor of the defence, the case could collapse or be referred to international mechanisms.
Such an outcome would be a political setback for the government, raising questions about the legitimacy of its judicial institutions.
Either way, the decision will influence how accountability and sovereignty are understood in South Sudan’s fragile transition.
Looking Ahead
The Special Court has promised to issue its ruling on the jurisdictional objection this week.
Legal experts predict that the decision will hinge on whether the court prioritizes constitutional sovereignty over the provisions of the peace agreement.
In the meantime, public interest remains high. SSBC, the state broadcaster, has been airing the proceedings live a rare move aimed at ensuring transparency and allowing citizens across the country to follow the developments.
For South Sudanese citizens weary of decades of war and political strife, the trial is both a reminder of unresolved tensions and a potential turning point.
As one Juba resident put it: “We want justice, but we also want peace. How this court decides will tell us whether South Sudan is moving forward or backward.”
Conclusion
The trial of Dr. Riek Machar and his allies is more than a courtroom drama. It is a reflection of South Sudan’s struggle to reconcile justice, peace, and political survival.
Whether the Special Court rules in its own favor or bows to the defence’s objections, the decision will set a precedent for how the country handles sensitive political cases in the future.
For now, South Sudan and indeed the international community waits with bated breath as the judges deliberate on one of the most consequential rulings in the nation’s short history.
Comments
Post a Comment